Law professors have a standard formula for exam questions: read this hypothetical situation and analyze any relevant issues. True to form, my Criminal Law test is more of the same.
Some say that this isn't necessarily very creative, but I don't mind. In fact, I enjoy these tests - a lot. I enjoy them in the same, sick way I loved the games section on the LSAT and in the same, sick way I love those tech interview brainteasers. In fact, while many of my classmates haven't slept and are all stressed out, I come to the tests all happy (although that week off from work may have contributed too).
I've always been a good test taker, and I mostly attribute that to the fact that I enjoy the challenge of taking the test. I usually don't get worked up, and I tend not to worry about any potential consquences. (Actually, maybe that explains my GPA :)
The reason I particularly like law school tests is that they reward not just where you arrive, but how you get there. You have the ability to show how you approach a problem; how you break a problem into smaller, manageable pieces; and how you ultimately come to a solution.
Back in March, my faculty advisor told me there are only three things you need to learn at law school:
- Statutory Construction
- Case Analysis
- Persuasion
Notice that she didn't mentioned anything specific. She didn't tell me to know the Rule Against Perpetuities or whether a sale goods under $500 is within the Statute of Frauds.
I'm not saying you can be ignorant of the law, but the law is made of up mostly of details, and details can be looked up. (Probably why most law school exams are open book).
Law school teaches you how to think. (Yes, this should be taught in elementary school, but that's besides the point).
This really isn't very different from what most developers do on a daily basis. We recognize patterns, building them from existing, well-known solutions. We take a problem and break it down into manageable pieces. And many of us probably spend a lot of time trying to convince other people that we actually know what we're talking about and that our analysis is correct.
And yes, like law, being a developer requires some degree of knowledge greater than ignorance. However, knowing an API doesn't make you a good developer. An API is largely made up of details, and details can be looked up (or in our case, Intellisensed).
See? Law and technology aren't all that different after all.
Except I sure wish I had Intellisense on my exams.